The Feminization of America and the Palaeolithic Politics of Masculinism

What shall we say about the Iron Johns among us; i.e., the men, to use a word that they invest with so much meaning; the poignant penis possessors who decry what they interpret as the "feminization of America"? I don't know what you might be inclined to say, but what I'm inclined to critically opine, and I'll cut straight and frankly to it, is that in most cases such individuals appear to be quite pathetic males manifesting an insecurity about their masculinity masquerading as concern for the manhood of the nation. It's of course actually their own virility that they need to verify, their own machismo that they need to confirm to themselves by talking mildly misogynistic talk about what a dreadful thing it is that our culture is encouraging men to be like the stereotypically softer and weaker creatures whom they view women to be. They are quite simply, and quite unconsciously projecting their personal issues in the form of social and political issues.

They are, moreover, projecting not merely their own precarious sense of manhood, but a culturally inculcated anti-feminist, manly-man's mentality whose worldview breaks down into Palaeolithically sexist and social dominance-oriented binaries such as strong and weak, superiority and inferiority, dominance and submission, masculinity and femininity. The first value in each of these binaries is of course simplistically attributed to those of us with an XY chromosomal makeup (men), those with an XX chromosomal makeup (women) being reduced to the embodiment of unadmirable and inferior qualities such as weakness, softness, dependence, emotionalism, etc. Consequently such a masculinist cognitive orientation has nothing but secret, subconscious disdain for the female nature. And of course males with this unevolved mentality also live in a good bit of repressed, sometimes open fear of losing their primitively defined manhood as a result of becoming "whipped" (to shorten a crude term). Hence when at long last our culture begins promoting certain civilizing values that might be viewed as "feminine" men of this psychic ilk feel threatened, become alarmed, they feel that our whole society is becoming whipped, and they start talking reactionary political trash about "the feminization of America".

Is our culture in fact becoming more genuinely civilized; is it growing, morally and spiritually, in the direction of values traditionally, culturally associated with the female sex? Values such as sensitivity, compassion, community? Let us hope that it is! Stereotypically male traits and behaviors fostered by dominance-oriented social structures, traits such as dominance, hardness, intolerance, aggressiveness, warlikeness, etc. have given us several thousand years of bloody conflict, repressive political systems, slavery, racism and the abuse of low-status members of society, capitalism, abuse of women, etc. Haven't we all had quite enough of the cruelty and terror of history, a history disproportionately shaped and dominated by masculine virtues. Isn't a little balance in order?

Well, returning to the point of view of the crudely and/or overcompensatingly manly-man's mentality, the answer is of course no. Remember that sensitivity is equated with softness, compassion with weakness, pacifism with cowardice, and community with a loss of he-manly individuality. "Teaching boys to be more social and sensitive, discouraging them from fighting is going to sissify them", this is the kind of rubbish that we hear. What might be considered the ethical evolution of our society into something kinder and gentler is instead negatively interpreted as the decline of American masculinity. The macho mind doesn't really think in ethical and humanistic terms at all, it's incapable of recognizing the arguably enlightened values that our culture is beginning to recognize as qualities that will make human beings more human, humane, and decent. Instead it dismisses them as merely qualities that will turn men into wimps.

This is of course nothing new. A thousand or so years ago when the Vikings were beginning to convert to Christianity there were those who opposed such a development because they viewed Christian values as feminine, and their adoption as likely to make Viking men weak and womanly. Well, just like the Vikings of yore, some modern American males can't appreciate spiritual values and instead fear their potential for diminishing American masculinity. This is also nothing new for American males, in the mid 19th-century we had the birth of the so-called "muscular Christianity" movement, which essentially was a movement that aimed at counteracting Christianity's perceived feminizing tendencies by infiltrating a bit of the macho mentality into the Christian faith. Mm-hmm, ethical and spiritual growth has always made the manly man uneasy.

Today of course it's conservatives, the political right that's taking point in the reaction against "feminizing" values. This is certainly not at all surprising, as rightism is largely just the political expression and guise of the primitive masculine mentality. Its insensitive, uncompassionate, and dominance-oriented positions on a host of issues (e.g., the right's support for the right of capitalist alpha males to exercise economic and social dominance over the poor; its members yearning for cultural dominance, manifested as a "culture war" waged to impose conservative morality and take away a woman's right to choose; its support for militarism; its approach to controlling crime by using police and prison guards to exercise the dominance of the good people of society over the criminal element) quite obviously stem from and betray the precise same male social dominance orientation that accounts for opposition to "feminization". Politicizing conservatives of course cry "Reverse sexism!", "See what woman's liberation is leading to!", "The feminazis are taking over!", and such twaddle. They indoctrinate those in their camp with the idea that they're under attack by liberal women, they pander to masculine insecurity, they promote the modern American male's victim complex while at the same time decrying the alleged victim complex of minorities!

It's reactionary politics, pure and simple. But of course masculinists, and adolescent and insecure males, are susceptible and are drawn over to the conservative side of the political spectrum. Conversely, perhaps men on the left support feminism because they're arguably more confident. At any rate, the right's demonization of feminism, and the concerns of the We-have-to-stop-the-feminization of America crowd are of a piece. They constitute a dangerous trend in our society today. Politically and personally insecure male individuals suffering from a cavemanly mindset and an unsophisticated concept of manhood are endeavoring to forestall our society's moral and spiritual evolution; its evolution toward more humane and humanistic attitudes and values; toward a more socially-compassionate and a less social dominance-oriented socioeconomic system; toward nonviolence; toward becoming a force for peace on earth rather than imperialism; toward the end of sexism: toward true decency. Yes, the pathetic middle-aged Iron Johns and primitive teenage boys who gripe, grouse, and whine about, who rail against and engage in reactionary political activism against feminism and "feminization" aren't merely amusing or sad specimens of American manhood, they're quite a genuine danger and need to be encouraged toward social and ethical enlightenment before they do further harm to a civilization struggling for survival and growth.

(Yes, of course everyone is welcome and invited to reply, to contribute feedback, even hostile conservatives and men of the opinion that our society is undergoing an insidious "feminization". )

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

At 3/10/2014 9:54:51 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:I haven't actually seen these articles that reference feminazis and feminism being a bad thing...

although I bet if I looked, i could probably find them.

Well, I touched on the shared psychological profile of conservatives and anti-feminizationists because the outspoken opponents of what they interpret as feminization tend to be found in the conservative camp. For instance, the dreadfulness of feminization is something that the folks at FOX News, such as Brit Hume and and the gender traitor Elisabeth Hasselbeck, like to engage in amateur and conservative sociological analysis of (here's an article, http://articles.chicagotribune.com... ). Then of course there's Rush Limbaugh, who's given us the wannabe-witty term "feminazi". Mm-hmm, if you wish to find and study examples of males suffering from the anti-feminization mentality it's in the conservative media that you should look, their incidence is predictably greater there.

It at the very least made me think about the issue, which is better then what other mediums in my life do.

Thank you.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Anti-feminizationists, women's movement bashers, and assorted haters on the feminine, i.e. all of those who believe that our society is transforming into a society of girlie men, alas you-all in fact and ironically seem to lack the manly confidence, the gonads to deal with women as equals. For you masculine strength and confidence seems to depend on its contrast with stereotypical feminine weakness. Hence strong women and our culture's validation and esteeming of feminine values threatens and undermines your ability to securely maintain the self-image of strong he-manly men, it indeed produces a feeling of masculine insecurity; which you express by waxing lofty and political (conservative) about nonsense such as reverse discrimination against men; and warning of a culture that, having allegedly been captured by the feminist movement, is now trying to suppress the male nature to advance a "politically-correct" social engineering agenda. Actually, you lot sound rather like conspiracists, except that the conspiracy you fear involves a "feminazi" cabal rather than the Trilateral Commission, Freemasons, or Jewish bankers (of course some of you right-wing anti-feminist geniuses no doubt believe in those conspiracies as well). Mm-hmm, in your fear-informed worldview women's rights activists are B-words and baddies out to take over our society, and that involves insidiously socially engineering things so that men become weak and more easily dominated creatures. An unbecomingly cowardly viewpoint for supposedly manly men, if you ask me. Yes, what moral cowards, nervous Nellies you manly conservative males are about the prospects of your shaky manhood in an evolving culture. Shut up and grow a pair already!

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Or, you can continue to be masculinist Chicken Littles, crying that our society is headed toward its downfall because of feminism, but know that this makes you look quite sad and silly.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Yep, it seems that perhaps this post is scaring all of you brave, manly conservatives away. Oh well.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Well I like them in that you're a decent dude under it all, in that they're really just you professing the hopeless you feel rather than making mean-spirited or vindictive posts as others do. There's humanity to them, you know? charleslb, on the other hand, is a badass revolutionary, f*ck the world and Jesus sort of guy. You're kinda the other side of the coin to him, sadolite, you burying yourself in your projects in feeling hopeless, charleslb just still hammering away in hope. His verbosity, however, does seem to lean in the direction of you and your projects.

Ah, so you're a fellow amateur psychologist. That's fine and one's right. But your analysis here is rather simplistic and goes in for stereotyping. Essentially, although I know that you don't identify with labels such as "right-wing", your school of thought seems to be the ole right-wing school of thought according to which the left consists of pathetically self-hating white pseudointellectual losers. Hmm, not terribly original or sophisticated for someone who fancies himself to be somewhat of an independent thinker. Perhaps "independent thinker" is an aspect of your ego ideal that you've yet to fully actualize. Oh well, how many people really live up to their ego ideal in its entirety?

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

And he's one of my favorite people here to argue with, until he gets to the point that he merely tells me that I'm self-loathing or whatnot, then it simply gets boring.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

At 3/10/2014 4:47:39 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:Great posting as always, charles. I'd never really considered the whole "sissifying" bit as a legitimate political agenda, actually - though it only makes absolute sense that it is indeed such.

Thank you.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

And he's one of my favorite people here to argue with, until he gets to the point that he merely tells me that I'm self-loathing or whatnot, then it simply gets boring.

Eh, I wouldn't take that personally charles. It's more of a projection, I think. sadolite has a tendency to break out with some of the most touching and human posts you'll come across ever now and again. They're always negatively framed, though, of course.

The abbreviated version, for those who are too busy to read a long post, and for conservative nonreaders.

That our society and culture is undergoing an unwise, dangerous, unfair-to-men feminization is merely a subjective belief that males of a certain insecure and/or crudely masculine and politically right-wing mentality focus disgruntlement in. The feminization of America is most certainly not a real sociological problem. And, if our society is in fact evolving in the direction of feminine values, rather than a problem this would be a quite hopeful thing that should be embraced and encouraged, not resisted. For such an evolution would mean axiologically grounding our civilization more in qualities such as sensitivity, compassion, and community, and this can only have benefits for human civilization.

(Btw, focusing disgruntlement on feminism is quite a blunder, as it diverts it away from its true sources and from where it should steadfastly be focused, from the dynamics, power structure, and ruling elite of our capitalist system.. The whole war of the sexes business just works out to be a distraction and a bit of divide and conquer, causing the energies of men and women to be consumed in the wrong struggle. Workingmen and workingwomen [which certainly includes housewives] should instead endeavor to form a united front against a socioeconomic and political system that inherently disempowers everyone who isn't a member of the fat cat class. To paraphrase Marx, Workingpeople of the world, of both genders and all races, unite if you wish to truly liberate yourselves.)

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Also, I would point out that the whole divide and conquer strategy is one that's being systematically pursued by conservatives and the Republican Party, as they recognize the divisiveness caused by the war of the sexes and the "culture war" to be a very effective way of promoting their agenda and protecting the capitalist power structure and elite from becoming the objects of mass disgruntlement. Yep, they certainly know what they're doing, and men who whine about the feminization of America are indeed playing right into their hands.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Ah, so you're a fellow amateur psychologist. That's fine and one's right. But your analysis here is rather simplistic and goes in for stereotyping. Essentially, although I know that you don't identify with labels such as "right-wing", your school of thought seems to be the ole right-wing school of thought according to which the left consists of pathetically self-hating white pseudointellectual losers. Hmm, not terribly original or sophisticated for someone who fancies himself to be somewhat of an independent thinker. Perhaps "independent thinker" is an aspect of your ego ideal that you've yet to fully actualize. Oh well, how many people really live up to their ego ideal in its entirety?

"But your analysis here is rather simplistic' That's because it's obvious and not complicated.

It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%

Ah, so you're a fellow amateur psychologist. That's fine and one's right. But your analysis here is rather simplistic and goes in for stereotyping. Essentially, although I know that you don't identify with labels such as "right-wing", your school of thought seems to be the ole right-wing school of thought according to which the left consists of pathetically self-hating white pseudointellectual losers. Hmm, not terribly original or sophisticated for someone who fancies himself to be somewhat of an independent thinker. Perhaps "independent thinker" is an aspect of your ego ideal that you've yet to fully actualize. Oh well, how many people really live up to their ego ideal in its entirety?

"But your analysis here is rather simplistic' That's because it's obvious and not complicated.

Any on-topic and substantive thoughts, my friend?

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Ah, so you're a fellow amateur psychologist. That's fine and one's right. But your analysis here is rather simplistic and goes in for stereotyping. Essentially, although I know that you don't identify with labels such as "right-wing", your school of thought seems to be the ole right-wing school of thought according to which the left consists of pathetically self-hating white pseudointellectual losers. Hmm, not terribly original or sophisticated for someone who fancies himself to be somewhat of an independent thinker. Perhaps "independent thinker" is an aspect of your ego ideal that you've yet to fully actualize. Oh well, how many people really live up to their ego ideal in its entirety?

"But your analysis here is rather simplistic' That's because it's obvious and not complicated.

Any on-topic and substantive thoughts, my friend?

Nope, be a wuss. I don't care.

It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%

I think that there has also been a significant and deleterious shift in what our society considers masculine. Norman Mailer once put it this way: "Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor. Because there is very little honor left in American life, there is a certain built-in tendency to destroy masculinity in American men." When one looks at how this modern machismo all too often replaces the more classic sentiment of masculinity it seems all the more insidious; it actually subverts what was once a decent ideal. Grinding this sense of arbitrary machismo into boys, forcing them to abide by a nonsensical code of things which are allowed them and things which are not based on gender, actually destroys any possibility of integrity by wiring behaviors to base fear instead of genuine understanding. And clear-mindedness, honor, taste, and all of the other hallmarks of manliness and dignified conduct which earlier eras promoted become all the more difficult to cultivate in the absence of such integrity.

I'm not supporting the idea that these qualities are exclusive to men; I find that 'feminine' qualities are caused more by the positions to which women have been relegated by society than any inborn nature. After all, Irene of Athens and Julia Maesa proved just as brutal, if not more, than their male counterparts once they were thrust into a dangerous political arena. Irene had her son summoned to court, where she had his eyes torn out and watched him bleed to death for plotting to betray her, while Julia Maesa orchestrated the rise and fall of several emperors, including the brutal murder of her own daughter and grandchild, the emperor Elegabalus. Ironically enough, chief among his crimes was his effeminacy (the irony is palpable). It seems to me that, while the binary itself isn't optimal, it's greatly exacerbated by the fact that our concept of masculinity has been so thoroughly defiled. Women can be good or bad. Men can be good or bad. And what is good and what is bad transcends the gender of the person in question. It really ought to be as simple as that.

"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -

At 3/10/2014 11:56:26 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:I think that there has also been a significant and deleterious shift in what our society considers masculine. Norman Mailer once put it ...

Thanks for contributing some truly substantive and insightful feedback. There's nothing to argue with here; and as you make your points effectively and thoroughgoingly there's really nothing that I would add either. Again, thank you.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

I should like to second Skepsikyma (welcome back, by the way) . Terms like 'manliness' have connotations and honourable origins, built upon noble ideals. I would point to traditional honour groups as an example. But, these groups declined for a variety of reasons (see this long article http://www.artofmanliness.com...) , and what we now remember are mere shards of a former collective social understanding. Take duels for instance. That is the image so many conjure up when they think of 'honour' . When people think of duels they think of duels to the death... Duels were exactly quite rare affairs, and were fairly organised (seconds, dates, times) , and in this manner they allowed parties to attempt a resolution before the actual duel. Contrast this to thuggish gangs and the like. Members of gangs, who, in armed numbers 'beat' some lone individual in an ambush are utter cowards.

Now, I'm not saying we necessarily should bring back duels. No. But the point is that the modern concept of a 'man' as portrayed by much of the media is a perverted, twisted ideal. It is insidious, and corrupts the youth of today. Look to an older view of masculinity, such as that espoused by http://www.artofmanliness.com... . One won't agree with all that they say, but its a mile better than machismo trash.

"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it

At 3/11/2014 2:41:05 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:I should like to second Skepsikyma (welcome back, by the way) . Terms like 'manliness' have connotations and honourable origins, built upon noble ideals.

I would point out that these terms are relative, and if one group is held to be "honourable" or "noble", then the opposite (in this case femininity), would be held to be otherwise.

In this sense, I would think that what is defined as "feminine" is 'cowardly and ignoble', and that such a characterization is substantiated in much of patriarchal history, and is why there is such a strong tradition of dismissing a woman's opinion outright in many, many professions and fields of study.

I also welcome back skep. =)

I would point to traditional honour groups as an example. But, these groups declined for a variety of reasons (see this long article http://www.artofmanliness.com...) , and what we now remember are mere shards of a former collective social understanding. Take duels for instance. That is the image so many conjure up when they think of 'honour' . When people think of duels they think of duels to the death... Duels were exactly quite rare affairs, and were fairly organised (seconds, dates, times) , and in this manner they allowed parties to attempt a resolution before the actual duel. Contrast this to thuggish gangs and the like. Members of gangs, who, in armed numbers 'beat' some lone individual in an ambush are utter cowards.

Now, I'm not saying we necessarily should bring back duels. No. But the point is that the modern concept of a 'man' as portrayed by much of the media is a perverted, twisted ideal. It is insidious, and corrupts the youth of today. Look to an older view of masculinity, such as that espoused by http://www.artofmanliness.com... . One won't agree with all that they say, but its a mile better than machismo trash.

At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?

At 3/10/2014 7:00:52 PM, charleslb wrote:The abbreviated version, for those who are too busy to read a long post, and for conservative nonreaders.

That our society and culture is undergoing an unwise, dangerous, unfair-to-men feminization is merely a subjective belief that males of a certain insecure and/or crudely masculine and politically right-wing mentality focus disgruntlement in. The feminization of America is most certainly not a real sociological problem. And, if our society is in fact evolving in the direction of feminine values, rather than a problem this would be a quite hopeful thing that should be embraced and encouraged, not resisted. For such an evolution would mean axiologically grounding our civilization more in qualities such as sensitivity, compassion, and community, and this can only have benefits for human civilization.

I don't mind most of this, so long as it's kept in moderation. I'm all for sensitivity and compassion, but not all the time. There are times where being blunt and straightforward are more effective. That's all.

At 3/10/2014 7:00:52 PM, charleslb wrote:The abbreviated version, for those who are too busy to read a long post, and for conservative nonreaders.

That our society and culture is undergoing an unwise, dangerous, unfair-to-men feminization is merely a subjective belief that males of a certain insecure and/or crudely masculine and politically right-wing mentality focus disgruntlement in. The feminization of America is most certainly not a real sociological problem. And, if our society is in fact evolving in the direction of feminine values, rather than a problem this would be a quite hopeful thing that should be embraced and encouraged, not resisted. For such an evolution would mean axiologically grounding our civilization more in qualities such as sensitivity, compassion, and community, and this can only have benefits for human civilization.

I don't mind most of this, so long as it's kept in moderation. I'm all for sensitivity and compassion, but not all the time. There are times where being blunt and straightforward are more effective. That's all.

Yes, no value should be taken to an extreme; to do so is to make a travesty of the values that one wishes to promote.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

Ah, so you're a fellow amateur psychologist. That's fine and one's right. But your analysis here is rather simplistic and goes in for stereotyping. Essentially, although I know that you don't identify with labels such as "right-wing", your school of thought seems to be the ole right-wing school of thought according to which the left consists of pathetically self-hating white pseudointellectual losers. Hmm, not terribly original or sophisticated for someone who fancies himself to be somewhat of an independent thinker. Perhaps "independent thinker" is an aspect of your ego ideal that you've yet to fully actualize. Oh well, how many people really live up to their ego ideal in its entirety?

"But your analysis here is rather simplistic' That's because it's obvious and not complicated.

Any on-topic and substantive thoughts, my friend?

Nope, be a wuss. I don't care.

Translation: "I can't be bothered to come up with anything constructive to say".

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.

At 3/11/2014 2:41:05 AM, Logic_on_rails wrote:I should like to second Skepsikyma (welcome back, by the way) . Terms like 'manliness' have connotations and honourable origins, built upon noble ideals. I would point to traditional honour groups as an example. But, these groups declined for a variety of reasons (see this long article http://www.artofmanliness.com...) , and what we now remember are mere shards of a former collective social understanding. Take duels for instance. That is the image so many conjure up when they think of 'honour' . When people think of duels they think of duels to the death... Duels were exactly quite rare affairs, and were fairly organised (seconds, dates, times) , and in this manner they allowed parties to attempt a resolution before the actual duel. Contrast this to thuggish gangs and the like. Members of gangs, who, in armed numbers 'beat' some lone individual in an ambush are utter cowards.

Now, I'm not saying we necessarily should bring back duels. No. But the point is that the modern concept of a 'man' as portrayed by much of the media is a perverted, twisted ideal. It is insidious, and corrupts the youth of today. Look to an older view of masculinity, such as that espoused by http://www.artofmanliness.com... . One won't agree with all that they say, but its a mile better than machismo trash.

Well, let's refrain from romanticizing dueling, shall we. Practices such as dueling may have been formalized and ritualized in a fashion prescribed by the culture of our European forbears, i.e. such practices may have been pseudocivilized, but they still betrayed a primitive dominance-oriented mentality that made men feel the need to demonstrate their possession of dominance-enhancing qualities such as physical bravery and prowess (euphemistically cognized in terms of honor and manliness) when they felt that someone's disrespect called their endowment with these qualities into question. In other words, dueling was a culturally dressed-up primitive response, a custom that legitimized engaging in potentially lethal violence to prove that one had gonads. Mm-hmm, that such a practice was acceptable, legal, and considered "honorable" in olden times actually indicts the male mentality of yore, ritualized combat to save face should most certainly not be viewed as a more civilized way that we've degenerated from. Such notions only keep us trapped in the mentality that manhood is about behaviors and traits that derive from crude instincts for self-assertion and dominance. If we're ever going to free ourselves from the dominance syndrome we're going to have to train ourselves to recognize it in all of its veiled, BS forms, and to begin consciously rejecting it in favor of a very different, more genuinely ethical and humanistic concept of what it means to be a man and a human being.

Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.